- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hal Bidlack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Prod tag removed, but I still think this article should be deleted - a very minor political figure who lost his race in Colorado. Though his accomplishments are many, none of them are notable and he remains a very obscure individual. Article also reads like an ad, which is a leftover really from the election. Descartes1979 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Appears to meet WP:BIO. Bidlack's notable for a variety of different things. His work promoting skepticism probably makes him notable by itself. There are many reliable sources about him. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been searching for the last half hour on the internet, and don't see how Bidlack's skepticism is notable - can you clarify and point to a reference that you think qualifies him? Or better yet, edit the summary on his page to show how he is a notable skeptic?--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the following sources:
- Sealover, Ed (August 14, 2008). "Lamborn turns attention to Bidlack in 5th Congressional District". Rocky Mountain News.
- Swanson, Perry (April 3, 2008). "Democrat launches his bid for congress". Colorado Springs Gazette.
- "Skepticality #047 - More from TAM: Hal Bidlack, Kylie Sturgess and Michael McRae". Skepticality.
- "Skepticality #057 - On being a Skeptic of Faith, Dr. Hal Bidlack, Ph.D". Skepticality.
- which are sufficent to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Icewedge (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep-served in the Clinton Administration as Director of Global Environmental Policy establishes notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Bidlack served in the administrations of Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. He's notable, all right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws4309 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Bws4309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep on the basis that a major party candidate for national office should be considered notable. As the article shows,such people invariably have other accomplishments. Whether the other accomplishments would themselves be enough is something I';m not at all sure about. Service to ad admin is notable only depending on the position; being on the 'staff" of the National Security Council, for example, can mean quite a range of things.If kept, eneds some editing to remove spam. Being interviewed by skepticalicity is not notability by itself. Even being interviewed twice. DGG (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.